This article develops a legal interpretation of “marine technology” under Article 1(10) of the BBNJ Agreement and examines how this definition enables the operationalization of equitable capacity-building and technology transfer. Drawing on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Wittgenstein’s theory of family resemblance, the article argues that the definition of “marine technology” serves as a dynamic, purpose-driven legal tool. It acquires meaning through its role within the treaty architecture. Through this lens, the article identifies two critical legal functions of the definition. First, it highlights the technologies that context-specific capacity-building measures must accompany. Second, it enables the mapping of potential access barriers, including intellectual property protections, that may obstruct effective participation by developing states. By analyzing the functional categories listed in the definition clause, the article demonstrates how legal interpretation can guide the strategic implementation of the BBNJ Agreement’s equity objectives. The analysis concludes that a narrow understanding of “marine technology” reproduces structural bias in international cooperation and limits the legal operability of benefit-sharing obligations under the BBNJ Agreement.

This article considers the existing elements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime for deep-sea mining activities (DSM EIA regime) in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and analyses whether EIA is adequate in terms of environmental protection. To assess adequacy, EIA is elaborated upon as a due diligence obligation to ensure effective environmental protection and the obligation of reasonable regard for other activities in the marine environment. In addition, it includes effective stakeholder consultation and environmental monitoring. Also relevant to the deep-sea mining EIA regime are the provisions and institutional mechanisms of the recently concluded BBNJ Agreement, especially in terms of the obligation or duty to cooperate.

The elimination of all forms of forced labour is considered a “fundamental right at work” of universal application. Fisheries is a well-documented and high-risk sector for the use of forced labour and arguably requires prioritization in international efforts to address this issue. What role can and do trade restrictive measures play in combating forced labour in fisheries, and are these measures consistent with international law? In answering these questions, this article demonstrates that import restrictions targeting forced labour products and states which facilitate the use of forced labour in fisheries are being employed in practice and are largely consistent with international law. Furthermore, these restrictions supplement and strengthen the existing international fisheries, trade and labour laws combating forced labour at sea.

As the world transitions to a low-carbon future, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are a critical component of efforts to decarbonise key energy and industrial sectors while reducing hard-to-abate atmospheric CO2 emissions. Given that onshore geology is often unsuitable for CO2 storage, the availability of extensive offshore storage opportunities increases the likelihood that states will utilise offshore geological formations located on the continental shelf for this purpose. However, offshore geological storage capacity varies significantly between states, leading some to seek access to their neighbours’ continental shelves for CO2 storage. In Europe, regional CO2 storage cooperation has resulted in bilateral agreements, formalised as non-legally binding memoranda of understanding (MoUs), to facilitate cross-border CO2 transport and storage. These arrangements provide a structured yet flexible framework for fostering cooperation among states involved in such projects. However, they also raise legal questions, particularly regarding compliance with international legal obligations, including European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) law. This article examines the legality of cross-border CO2 transport and storage networks in Europe. It analyses the legal challenges posed by the general prohibition on waste export, the conditions under which cross-border CO2 transport and storage may be permitted, and the role of bilateral arrangements in fostering regional cooperation. It also explores the interaction between international legal frameworks—such as the London Protocol and UNCLOS—and regional instruments, including the EU CCS and Emissions Trading System (ETS) Directives. The article argues that, despite their non-binding nature, these MoUs demonstrate the parties’ intention to implement their obligations under the London Protocol, UNCLOS, and other applicable international law. Furthermore, this practice has been adopted by several European states without objection from other states or international judicial scrutiny. As such, these MoUs may have interpretative value as a supplementary means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, potentially influencing the application of existing treaty obligations related to cross-border CO2 transport and storage. Finally, this article considers the challenges of transposing the European legal framework to other regions exploring similar cross-border CO2 networks.

The fast expansion of offshore wind generation in the Baltic and North seas has made efficient marine co-existence frameworks even more important for managing conflicting uses of marine space. While addressing more general policy objectives like energy security and biodiversity conservation, marine co-existence entails creating a balance between offshore wind energy development with such industries as fisheries, shipping, aquaculture, and environmental protection. Based on past research, this article starts with an analysis of marine co-existence as a conceptual framework, separating active marine co-existence—as an interaction between maritime sectors and interests that yields win–win solutions—and passive marine co-existence—with an aim to protect the ecological relevance of unplanned areas. The article then centres on the tools at hand to apply marine co-existence in regulation. Among them are strategic environmental assessments, maritime spatial planning, feasibility planning, procurement policies, and permit-granting procedures—mostly environmental impact assessments and licensing. Inspired by national legal systems, the European Union/European Economic Area, and international legal systems, the article investigates how these instruments help to apply marine co-existence. It contends that although current tools offer a foundation for marine co-existence, their efficacy is limited without specific marine co-existence strategies. More exact policy guidance, integrated regulatory approaches, and more study on cumulative consequences, prioritizing in spatial planning, and cross-sectoral conflict resolution inside increasingly crowded marine habitats are required.

The deployment of offshore wind power is critical to addressing renewable energy demands, yet challenges in marine spatial planning (MSP) and licensing processes may hinder progress. This article explores systems for offshore wind licensing, highlighting the role of planning in fostering predictability and managing spatial conflicts. The analysis is framed by a review of the planning systems of Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, followed by a study of 17 applications for wind farms within Sweden’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Sweden’s decentralized planning model at sea is based on marine spatial plans and a system of national interests to guide the use of marine areas in the EEZ. However, these tools are only guiding in terms of best use of space, not binding. This leads to ambiguities and overlapping interests that complicate licensing processes. Furthermore, the absence of site exclusivity in Sweden’s system exacerbates competition and increases uncertainties. In contrast, Denmark and Norway provide systems with binding designations and auction-based concession rights. Lessons from these models underscore the importance of integrating binding plans, streamlined licensing, and exclusivity mechanisms to enhance predictability and expedite renewable energy deployment. This article introduces two types of predictability: procedural and material. It concludes that enhancing both types of predictability in MSP requires resolving ambiguities, coordinating overlapping national interests, and implementing exclusive rights for wind farm development. These steps are vital for advancing offshore wind energy and achieving climate goals. The findings offer insights for improving MSP frameworks in Sweden and other countries navigating similar challenges.

The recent debate on autonomous ships has mobilized states and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). However, one vehicle category remains out of the ongoing regulatory efforts: autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). The first part of this article discusses the technical characteristics a vehicle must have to be considered an AUV. The second part analyses the extent to which the existing legal framework can apply to AUVs. To do so, the article explores the international conventions, examples of domestic laws, and other regulations that can contribute to understanding how AUVs can best be classified within the categories established in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Recent enforcement actions in the Baltic Sea against vessels suspected of sabotaging submarine infrastructure in international waters raise important law of the sea issues. This article considers the right of states to take enforcement measures against ships that are suspected of having damaged cables and pipelines on the high seas or in their exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It also addresses other rules of international law of potential relevance to the matter. It concludes that even if the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not provide for specific enforcement jurisdiction for non-flag states, there are certain opportunities to take enforcement measures, depending on the nature of the threat and the level of evidence. Some measures aimed at improving legal clarity in this field are reviewed, separately for the global, regional and national governance levels.

Since 2011, Mauritius and Seychelles have jointly exercised sovereign rights over an area of extended continental shelf (ECS) in the region of the Mascarene Plateau. The management of this Joint Management Area (JMA) presents the two coastal states with a challenge, navigating the complex legal issues arising from the convergence of different rights and obligations that exist in this unique maritime zone. Through an examination of the development of the JMA, this article explores the practical issues associated with planning for and managing areas of extended continental shelf and considers the opportunities and limitations that the regime under Part VI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) places on coastal states vis-à-vis their ability to protect those resources over which they exercise legitimate authority. In doing so, this article will also consider the implications of the recently adopted implementing agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) for the ECS regime, both for coastal states and for third states and regional fisheries and marine management organizations.

In September 2022, an alleged act of sabotage damaged the submarine pipelines, known as Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, that were built to transit natural gas from the Russian Federation to Germany. The broken points of these pipelines have been located in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and on the continental shelves of Denmark and Sweden. While relevant states initiated domestic investigations to uncover the truth behind these incidents, international law scholars are still looking for applicable laws to characterise them. This article discusses the jurisdictional issues over the Nord Stream incidents under international law. In particular, it discusses coastal state jurisdiction over incidents such as foreign transiting pipelines in the EEZ and on the continental shelf under the law of the sea. It then examines three scenarios that could arguably characterise the Nord Stream incidents and discusses which states could establish and exercise jurisdiction over the alleged perpetrators.